She's not far wrong in this it lady cyclists are much more polite and respect other road users than your average fat guy in lycra.

Don't ever remember seeing a fat guy in lycra on a cycle myself. The males who are idiots all seem to be dressed in jeans, usually without helmets.

The best of all though was the one taking his dog for a run. The poor dog was left to run on the outside too so s/he (didn't look too closely as I was driving at the time) would be the one to get hit by the car first. That peabrain (bloke, that is, not dog) wasn't wearing a helmet either. But he was wearing jeans.

Unrelated to the topic, but nevertheless helmet related: BBC The One Show last night featured some drama students re-enacting some of Miranda Hart's falls from "Miranda". Not only did they have a crash mat but they were wearing cycling helmets - evidently to protect the BBC lawyers.

a study from holland would be interesting where the infrastructure is second to none and leisure cyclists don't wear helmets!

I believe such a study exists and its conclusions are that the Dutch don't need mandatory helmets because they have such good infrastructure. Their injury level is low - and usage rate high - because despite having a higher population density than the UK they create systems were cyclists and pedestrians do not come into conflict with cars.

The DfT over here responded to the most recent release of Dutch cycling stats by saying the Dutch should learn from us as they had a greater number of injuries. The fact that they have more cyclists, travelling more often and further seemed to pass them by. It'd be like us saying that because Hamas haven't fired any rockets at us that the Israelis should copy our defence strategy.

I don't really understand the helmet, no helmet debate. Having been knocked off my bike a couple of times I have been grateful that I was wearing a helmet as both instances by head hit the ground hard (cue jokes about Glaws boys being strong in the arm, thick in the head). There are accidents where helmets cannot protect the cyclist against injury, and there are accidents where helmets may save a life (James Cracknell comes to mind).

If motorcyclists are expected to wear helmets, why not cyclists?

Just to pick up on a point Jon made, better cycling infrastructure would definitely make it safer for all concerned. But these issues aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't really understand the helmet, no helmet debate. Having been knocked off my bike a couple of times I have been grateful that I was wearing a helmet as both instances by head hit the ground hard (cue jokes about Glaws boys being strong in the arm, thick in the head). There are accidents where helmets cannot protect the cyclist against injury, and there are accidents where helmets may save a life (James Cracknell comes to mind).

If motorcyclists are expected to wear helmets, why not cyclists?

Just to pick up on a point Jon made, better cycling infrastructure would definitely make it safer for all concerned. But these issues aren't mutually exclusive.

Motorcycle helmets weigh around 1.5 kilos. Decent ones cost between £250 and £500 and are subject to a whole range of tests. They restrict your vision, your hearing and your range of head movement. They are designed to protect motorcyclist heads in a wide range of road situations at a wide range of speeds. Sikhs by the way are exempted from helmet compulsion.

You may be quite rightly grateful that your helmet saved you from banging your head,but there are those wearing helmets who have suffered neck injuries when falling from a bike. Daily I see young kids wearing ill-fitted, wrongly sized helmets that would not prevent injury from a fall. They feel safe, though, and their parents are blissfully unaware of the need to do it properly.

Of course, it a matter of choice and freedom..freedom not to be called a ##### by Saintslass who has no evidence to support the assertion. Wearing one because it stands to reason sort of legitimises the carrying of a rabbits foot. Make helmet wearing compulsory and we'll lose more people to heart attacks as a result.

You may be quite rightly grateful that your helmet saved you from banging your head,but there are those wearing helmets who have suffered neck injuries when falling from a bike.

If a helmet that you put on your head for the purposes of protecting your head was also supposed to protect your neck then I would see the relevance of your comment. However, helmets are not designed to support your neck so I don't really see how not wearing a helmet simply because you could still sustain a neck injury with a helmet on is anything like a logical or remotely sensible argument for not wearing a helmet.

How mucg cycling do you do? If you were to wear a helmet in the mistaken belief that it will protect you in an accident can cause you more harm than it is intended to prevent, then why would you continue to wear one. Unless of course you also carry a rabbits foot.

I think these might explain it better than I can. Really worth reading as it is logical and brings together much research and experience.

Everyone has their own reasons for choosing whether or not to wear a helmet. Some people feel safer and more confident if they do wear one; while others decide not to wear one because they think helmets make cycling appear exceptionally dangerous (which it isn't!) – and a few just don’t want to mess up their hair!

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!